"Portraits of Grief" and more, noticed abroad
I found this article, "Nullpunkt, Zentrum der Welt," ("Ground zero, center of the world") in Die Zeit, a German newsweekly. Peter Kümmel writes:

In the days after the attack, the New York Times began a series that is still running: it's called "Portraits of Grief" and presents on one, sometimes two pages, photos and short portraits of the WTC victims, at least 12 each day. We see everyone who fell there, months after their death. We learn from what kinds of lives they were stolen, what they owned and what they were proud of. We get to know their schedules, as if all these lives would resume sometime. Whole suburbs and home lifes are created in the mind's eye of the reader (one hears that the series has a tremendous readership). It's a sociogram of the disappeared, a resurrection project in 30 dry lines per item, a catalog of the dead, with the subliminal message that we could be among them. And it is probably the greatest of all attempts to give this city transparency. New York is addicted to pictures, as survivors are known to be. "If a house burns, many people will first save their family photo album," Life Magazine once wrote, and that is exactly what has been happening for months: the city is producing and rescuing its family photo album. [...]

On December 10 the New Yorker cover had a map of the five New York boroughs. But Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island had disappeared along with all their streets, railways, and bridges. Instead there was a snarl of crypto-exotic clan and country names. ...Fuhgeddabouditstan (approximate German translation: Forget-it-Land) ... Trumpistan ... Lowrentistan ... Psychobabylon. It was as if the city had taken off its mask of concrete and asphalt and shown its true, wrinkled face: New York as a prehistoric landscape, as a chaos of tribes, as a world of a hundred deserts and steppes. The cover is the talk of the town. It flatters New Yorkers' pride to be set out in a wilderness and to be its equal. And Osama picked here of all places to start a war with the West, for crying out loud? [...]

Kümmel did a good thing here: there's more, and he's not uncritical, but he doesn't look for cheap shots either. This was written by a friend who cares, not someone who seems to be on no more than a shopping trip. I was in tears halfway through that first paragraph. We are not alone over there, not by any means. I have correspondence from my own relatives to prove that, too.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:00:00 PM -- |    

 

Well, yeah, one must if it's the French ambassador to the U.K.
On Monday, Barbara Amiel of the Telegraph reported:

Recently, the ambassador of a major EU country politely told a gathering at my home that the current troubles in the world were all because of 'that shitty little country Israel.' 'Why,' he asked, 'should the world be in danger of World War Three because of those people?'

Slate's Inigo Thomas' 12/20 "idea of the day" seems to be that Amiel violated etiquette:

If you are a journalist at a party and you hear someone say something unpleasant or shocking about a person, people, or a country, should you then quote that person in your next report or column, even if what was said was spoken in private? In Barbara Amiel's view, one must.

Since then, as Inigo Thomas notes, the ambassador was identified as Daniel Bernard, France's ambassador to the United Kingdom. As such, Monsieur Bernard is a public figure, even if he is apparently a shitty one. Amiel is a journalist. Inigo Thomas apparently isn't, or he'd welcome M. Bernard's "outing" as a VIP anti-Semite. Thomas writes that the Independent's Sholto Byrnes reports that Bernard has pleaded a poor grasp of English. Inigo and Sholto appear to buy that. What a pile of merde. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:06:00 PM -- |    

 

Der Spiegel interviews Yasser Arafat
The German newsweekly Der Spiegel has published an interview with Yasser Arafat in its 12/22/2001 issue. Here are some excerpts:

Arafat: ...To understand what Sharon really wants, I'll tell you the following: After the Israeli army conquered East Jerusalem in June 1967, the defense minister at the time gave the order, that no non-Muslims were to be allowed to pray on the plateau of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, holy to us Muslims. All Israeli heads of government have adhered to this.

When I heard last year that Sharon wanted to demonstratively break this rule, I went to Prime Minister Barak, and expressly asked him to prevent the Sharon visit, in order to avoid the predictable unrest that the visit would cause. Barak did not answer me. Sharon visited the Aqsa plateau, and there were deaths and injuries, which everyone knew would happen. [...]

SPIEGEL: The problem is getting more complicated: Israel's Prime Minister does not recognize you as the legitimate representative of and speaker for the Palestinian people. You are "irrelevant" to him.

Arafat: That's his problem, not mine. The whole world is ignoring that anyway. Just now President Bush congratulated me in my capacity on occasion of the end of Ramadan. I was elected democratically by my people. An international observer commission, with ex-President Jimmy Carter, the president of Portugal, and the ex-Premier of Japan, watched over the election. What makes Sharon tick? ...
If the Madrid agreements and the principle of "land for peace" endorsed by the great powers don't suit him, could he then say: Madrid is null and void for me? [...]

SPIEGEL: How serious are you about proceeding against Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Are you really even able to?

Arafat: Even though Israel is surprisingly hindering us from doing so, we are proceeding very efficiently against the instigators of violence and terror. We've closed all offices of both organizations, and have arrested everyone on [American Middle East envoy] Zinni's list who we've been able to get our hands on. We want very much to stop these insane actions once and for all. We are completely meeting our responsibilities, even though Israel is not meeting its own responsibilities, doesn't pull back from the autonomous areas, blockades towns and ignores all agreements

SPIEGEL: Many Palestinians see your harsh actions against the violent Islamists as a capitulation to Israel.

Arafat: I know, some of their speakers go even further. But I say to everyone very clearly and to the point: We tolerate only the legitimate Palestinian national Autonomous Government, composed of freely elected members of the Palestinian legislative council. Whoever does not submit to the legitimate decisions of the central authority, or even acts against the national interests of our people, consciously puts himself offsides legally. He must take the consequences. [...]

SPIEGEL: If no more attacks happen, will the peace process resume?

Arafat: The whole world expects that with us. After all, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not confined to security matters.

SPIEGEL: But if there are more explosions?

Arafat: Listen: The Americans had an extremely bloody war with the Viet Cong, and yet both sides negotiated in Paris for five years. [...]

SPIEGEL: The negotiations in Taba, Egypt, where Ehud Barak gave you 95% of the territories and substantial control over Jerusalem, were broken off...

Arafat: ... it was 87% in a very special framework.

SPIEGEL: And you would negotiate about that again?

Arafat: Of course, we don't have to go back to square one. I'm sure that if the negotiations resume, we could come to agreement relatively quickly about the questions left open in Taba and which we could have solved with more time. Despite my age, I even believe that I will be granted the chance to cross the Egyptian-Palestinian border and the Israeli border on the "Railroad of Peace" commissioned by Egyptian President Mubarak.

My own comments, in no particular order:

Der Spiegel played softball for the most part: "Your harsh actions," etc.

The one hard question ("Are you really even able to?") gets the answer "we've arrested everyone we've been able to get our hands on." That seems clever, but basically admits either (1) he's not trying very hard, or (2) he really isn't able to stop Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or their ilk.

87% vs. 95%!!!

Like it or not, Arafat is right about one thing: he is the elected leader of the Palestinians. That can change, of course, both in fact and in significance; as many have pointed out, "Palestinian" is a bit of a recent construct, "Jordanian" would be nearer the mark. I'm intrigued by the idea of Israel returning or granting sovereignty over the 95% (excuse me, 87%) to Jordan, putting up some high fences, and saying goodbye to the region for a while. Arafat could be governor of the Palestinian region of Jordan, for all most people would care.

The Viet Cong were shooting the whole time, too. Is Arafat for or against the use of violence in this dispute? If he's for it, are the Israelis not entitled to self-defense in kind?

I'll have to look this up, but it's my understanding that it was Sharon's perfect right to go to Al Aqsa, whatever the Palestinian street may have thought about it; Arafat himself only refers to Israeli usage, not to any formal agreement. It doesn't inspire confidence to see Arafat trump Sharon's visit up to the level of a broken treaty. Moreover, Middle East expert Daniel Pipes makes a pretty convincing argument that Jerusalem itself has not always been that significant to the Muslim world. Personally, I sometimes think making Jerusalem part of the Czech Republic or Mongolia might be best, but they doubtless don't need the grief.

An enduring image: Arafat on a choo-choo train for peace. Well, it's good for a grin, anyway.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:11:00 PM -- |    

 

Who smuggled al Harbi to bin Laden? or The good cop/bad cop games theocracies can play
Via Ken Layne: ABC News commissioned a full translation of the Bin Laden video, revealing that Khalid al Harbi says he was smuggled into Afghanistan by Saudi Arabia's religious police. A subsequent Washington Post account, again via Layne, differs on this important detail, stating that it was Iranian religious police who did the smuggling. After the first report, Ken Layne commented:

So, let's get this straight: A Saudi millionaire from one of Saudi Arabia's richest families plotted a massive attack on the United States using 15 Saudi citizens as hijackers, and this attack was praised by members of the Saudi Arabian government's religious council while Saudi officials smuggled a fanatic Saudi cleric into Afghanistan to give praise to the Saudi who led the attack. The Saudis hustle the bin Laden family out of the United States within hours of the attacks -- and with the White House's help -- and refuse to cooperate in the investigation of the 15 Saudi hijackers. Meanwhile, Saudi royalty runs loose in the United States, breaking the law and claiming diplomatic immunity whenever they're caught.

Folks, Saudi Arabia attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. It doesn't matter whether the command came from that bloated hog King Fahd or the fanatic religious leadership he can't control. What is obvious to everyone except the Bush Administration is that our ally, Saudi Arabia, harbored, supported and created the terrorists who launched a war against the United States 100 days ago.

However, there is the "sting" angle I mentioned a few days ago -- so take your pick:
1) the Saudi religious police were doing U.S. bidding to get the weasel Al Harbi and his HandyCam to Bin Laden. (I doubt the Iranian religious police would.)
2) the Saudi or Iranian religious police were doing their own nasty pro-Bin Laden business, and we were lucky to get the videotape.

Someone in Washington, D.C. knows, and I think the American people should know, too. I'm getting a little bit sick of the mantra about "protecting our sources"; we need the information to know just where we stand with Saudi Arabia. Even if it's door number 1 above, Layne outlines very well why Saudi Arabia has a long, long way to go before I consider them an ally in any important sense. Al Harbi presumably wasn't hallucinating about the prominent, non-fringe clerics who supported the 9/11 attacks. If it's door number 2, and it was Saudis, then we have a very serious problem with Saudi Arabia (as if we didn't know that already), and my most important reason for not going to war with Iraq does not apply: they are harboring, aiding, and abetting 9/11 attackers, before and after the attacks.

Final thought about the convenience/inconvenience of uncontrollable religious clergy: both Iran and Egypt are very similar in this respect. "Yes, but what do Khameini/Al Azhar University leadership say?" should be the constant question whenever "moderate" voices from these countries are mentioned.

=====
Update, 10:45pm: Justin Slotman ("Insolvent Republic of Blogistan") points out this MSNBC article, which pins down the religious police involved as "“jalad alhayaa” (meaning, the article says, Saudi "religious police") ... So there you go." Although those words may just mean "religious police," perhaps still leaving it a matter of context and guesswork whether Al Harbi meant Iranians or Saudis. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:51:00 AM -- |    

 

Frage nicht, sage nicht (Don't ask, don't tell in German)
A German TV crew for WDR/ARD happened to be at Mazar-e-Sharif for an interview with Northern Alliance general Dostum when the prison uprising occurred. The chief correspondent, Arnim Stauth, lent his satellite phone to the CIA/special forces guy who was there ("David") to call for help, and ultimately for air support.

According to a reliable fellow day-care parent source, WDR correspondent Arnim Stauth actually got criticized for this by fellow German journalists. Well, actually, not for doing it, more for admitting he'd done it: after some chin-pulling, it was apparently decided that the proper thing would have been to go ahead and do it, but just not reveal that. Not that there's anything wrong with TRYING TO SAVE YOUR LIFE FROM A BUNCH OF SUICIDAL FANATICS. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any other information on-line about this "controversy."

Mr. Stauth's radio and TV reports all bear out the treachery of the Taliban/Al Qaeda prisoners, the chaotic situation inside the prison, and the desperate situation he, the American, and the Northern Alliance soldiers found themselves in, with gunfire interrupting the conversations with the WDR home office several times. (The web page headline translates to "..I can't talk any more, we're getting out of here." A second headline reads "That was obviously a Taliban trap.") At one point early on, the N.A. forces at the prison were actually running low on ammunition; many had returned to Kunduz, reported Stauth, to rejoin the celebration there. posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:06:00 PM -- |    

 

Should all human experimentation be legal?
In an April 16, 2001 National Review article, Should Cloning Be Legal?, Dave Kopel and Glenn Reynolds (of "Instapundit" fame) argued that research into cloning can not be federally banned, since no issues of interstate commerce or other federal powers are involved. (Mr. Reynolds drew attention to the article again in a brief 12/17 comment deriding Congressional inquiries into Advanced Cell Technology's therapeutic cloning and related matters as a "dumb idea.") Kopel and Reynolds are two smart fellows, so they may well be right as far as federal oversight per se goes, at least as of 1995 when the main Supreme Court decision they cite (United States v. Lopez) was made.

But this may be less a matter of federal powers than of individual rights, in which case the crux of the matter is or ought to be when we concede those rights to a developing human being. I do not argue for banning "therapeutic cloning", in which early stage embryos are harvested for therapeutic or medicinal purposes. I see nothing more intrinsically human or spiritual about early stage embryos than I do about a sample of cells scraped from my cheek; federal regulation or Constitutional concern is unnecessary.

But when it comes to "reproductive cloning," in which the goal is to create a healthy human being by cloning techniques, those concerns become real. At some point, variously defined, but surely by late term, there is a human being involved here. As I've argued before ("Cloning debate continued here", "Cloning followup"), that human being should not be failure number 239 in some research scientist's quest for a Nobel Prize or a stock option deal. To put the assertion more strongly yet: that human being should not even be failure number 1 in a reproductive cloning research program. I am arguing for the (somewhat paradoxical) rights not to exist, and even not to be attempted under conditions such as these.

Reynolds cites Virginia Postrel's Reason article on the topic (Don't Impede Medical Progress). Ms. Postrel takes on the issue of reproductive cloning as follows:

...At the current stage of knowledge, using cloning to conceive a child would indeed be dangerous and unethical, with a high risk of serious birth defects. Anyone who cloned a baby today would rightly face, at the very least, the potential of an enormous malpractice judgment. There are good arguments for establishing a temporary moratorium on reproductive cloning.

But the small possibility of reproductive cloning does not justify making nucleus transfer a crime. Almost any science might conceivably be turned to evil purposes. This particular misuse is neither especially likely -- cell biology labs are not set up to deliver fertility treatments -- nor, in the long run, especially threatening.

Contrary to a lot of scary rhetoric, a healthy cloned infant would not be a moral nightmare, merely the not-quite-identical twin of an older person. (The fetal environment and egg cytoplasm create some genetic variations.) Certainly, some parents might have such a baby for bad reasons, to gratify their egos or to "replace" a child who died. But parents have been having children for bad reasons since time immemorial.

Fair enough, for the most part. I note with satisfaction that Ms. Postrel approves of at least a temporary moratorium on reproductive cloning -- and suggest that research banned temporarily, in this case at least, is research banned permanently: where else would the experience come from to increase the success rate of the procedure, and allay the fears of critics? As I've stated before, I suppose that with time and luck, the process might become quite routine. But I doubt very much that it would immediately be that way, and so I oppose trying. And I vehemently deny that anyone has the right to have children for any old "bad reason", especially including a modern variety of human sacrifice.

Like Shiloh Bucher earlier this year, I write in part because I don't like that these concerns are being pooh-poohed or dismissed as "stupid" or "dumb ideas." As for the legal basis for Congressional action, I should think that whatever guidelines apply to forbid human experimentation without informed consent have U.S. Constitutional support, presumably in the Bill of Rights. If not, they should. There may have been nothing in the Constitution at one time to forbid slavery nationwide, either, but there is now. I see a vast difference here, by the way, with the question of testing drugs on children or infants without the power of informed consent: you can call off a drug test as a researcher, you can withdraw or be withdrawn from it as a subject.

Ms. Postrel is no doubt sincere in her call for a reproductive cloning moratorium; perhaps Mr. Reynolds is agnostic on the subject. It won't happen without a debate, though, and Congress is the proper venue for that debate. I hope they use the occasion of the ACT announcement to consider it. I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, so I would (of course) leave the crafting of a federal law or, if necessary, a Constitutional amendment, to others. But I see no reason to support Idaho's right to act differently in this than Ohio or Georgia, any more than I would support any State's pre-13th Amendment rights to allow slavery, negligent manslaughter, or torture. Any of which could resemble the fate of the inevitable failed victims of reproductive cloning research. (The 8th Amendment's forbiddance of "cruel and unusual punishment" might apply).

Some may object that in vitro fertilization, in its research phase, had the same potential arguments against it that reproductive cloning research does. But there are major differences between the two techniques. In the case of in vitro fertilization, the only experimentation involved was in preserving the viability of otherwise intact eggs, sperm, and embryos long enough to permit fertilization and implantation. In the case of reproductive cloning, a cell nucleus long since specialized to its tissue and task is extracted, more or less whole, inserted more or less completely into a more or less denucleated egg cell, and shocked into more or less early-embryo like cell behavior by more or less biological means. Quite unlike in vitro fertilization, significant opportunities for gross and subtle genetic error exists at multiple stages in the process (see above). Those errors might often be manifested early and drastically enough that a merciful fetal self-destruction would occur, or detectably enough that an early termination of the pregnancy would be possible. But sometimes they would not be apparent until it was too late.

I acknowledge that it might be difficult to draft legislation that permits in vitro fertilization, but outlaws reproductive cloning. I also acknowledge that such a ban might cost some of us one kind of chance for a biological -- in some sense -- child. Finally, I see that banning reproductive cloning for this reason is similar to forbidding or limiting procreation by couples likely to produce infirm offspring. I dislike the idea of eugenics in general, and certainly don't support the racial eugenics of yesteryear. The difference in techniques between, shall we say, "unskilled labor" and laboratory methods seems reasonably clear, but translating that into a clear legal distinction might be a challenge. So I'll close by saying that I don't have every answer ready. I just don't think United States v. Lopez or Advanced Cell Technology possibly could either. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:20:00 PM -- |    

 

We seem to have Yemen's undivided attention now
That's nice: Yemen said to attack al-Qaida areas

It was the first time that Yemen has resorted to military action against supporters of bin Laden.

Welcome aboard, fellow infidels. Maybe Arafat is taking notes. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:37:00 PM -- |    

 

Fine with me (but what will Amnesty International think?)
Guardian/Observer regulars Vulliamy and Burke claim Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting:

This weekend, as the debate the tape has provoked continued across the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested to The Observer that the tape, although absolutely genuine, is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the CIA through a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or Pakistani.

'They needed someone whom they could persuade or coerce to get close to bin Laden and someone whom bin Laden would feel secure talking to. If it works, you have got the perfect evidence at the perfect moment,' said one security source. 'It's a masterstroke.'

The article goes on to i.d. the chief "interviewer" as "Ali Saeed al-Ghamdi, a former assistant professor of theology at a seminary in Mecca"; yesterday's New York Times disagrees, fingering the same speaker as Khaled al-Harbi, a now-legless veteran of Bosnia and Chechnya. Whoever had access to the Handycam of Kandahar, the rumor might be as good as gold: if OBL starts to wonder about every contact of his, that would be, as Martha Stewart says, "a good thing." The Guardian's participation in the ruse would be somewhat ironic. posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:53:00 PM -- |